Saturday, July 23, 2005

More From the Fascists.....

Probably nothing to get too worked up about, right? Its probably for our own good, after all, these fascists know what is 'good for us'. Heck, if you aren't doing anything 'wrong,' you have nothing to fear, right? Or maybe you're thinking it could never happen here. We are, after all, a freedom loving country, right? We have the American flag and baseball and, well, we are the best in the world, right? No way we'd pass a law requiring each of us to turn into a "snitch" against our fellow man, right?

How could an American senator even propose this type of legislation? It just seems unfathomable.

"If you "witness" certain drug offenses taking place or "learn" that they took place you would have to report the offense to law enforcement within 24 hours and provide "full assistance" in the investigation, apprehension, and prosecution of the people involved. Failure to do so would be a crime punishable by a mandatory two year prison sentence."

This a-hole, good-for-nothing, fascist congressman from Wisconsin, James Sensenbrenner, is the same man who cut off the microphone in the middle of a congressional hearing because he didn't like what he was hearing (without motion on the floor!)...he has the balls to title the bill as the "Defending America's Most Vulnerable: Safe Access to Drug Treatment and Child Protection Act of 2005"! How Orwellian is that?

Perhaps a better title would have been: "Policing Our Citizen's: The Volks Sturmabteilung Act of 2005"

So if you're keeping score at home. Cruel and unusual punishment (aka torture) is now just dandy. Arresting people and detaining them for years without formal charges being filed against them and refusing them their consitutional right to counsel is also okay. The government can now make searches and seizures without ever letting you know that they have done so. Flag burning may soon be a federal crime. Your library records may be retrieved by the government. Compelled citizen snitching....coming soon?

It scary the sorts of things that politicians will resort to in trying to protect us from ourselves. I did a search on the Library of Congress website and found the actual text of the bill introduced by Sensenbrenner.

What's funny is that a year ago, people hated Bush just like they do today. In October, they go from hating him to loving him, and he's reelected. Now these same people are complaining about his handling of Iraq and everything else.

This is very alarming, that's for sure. I posted on this several weeks ago; I'm glad it's getting more publicity. Scheisse Sensenbrenner has gotta go. He was one of the ringleaders of Clinton's impeachment and he was behind the Real ID Act.

As a life-long Wisconsinite I am truly appalled by the actions and idiotic thought process of Sensenbrenner. We have not sent a fascist to Washington since that other idiot Joe McCarthy. I'm glad I don't live in his district!

I ask you not to hold it against the State of Wisconsin for the crap that this fool spews from his mouth.

"If you "witness" certain drug offenses taking place or "learn" that they took place you would have to report the offense to law enforcement within 24 hours and provide "full assistance" in the investigation, apprehension, and prosecution of the people involved. Failure to do so would be a crime punishable by a mandatory two year prison sentence."

This is rediculous, and opens up a HUGE legal blackhole, but what else do you expect in the War on (some) Drugs?

1. How is "failure to notify the authorities" supposed to be proven? Unless you were in the room, or you supplied drugs to someone, you could have no idea any drugs were going on.

2. Isn't this just a rewording of the "conspiracy/accessory to a crime" laws? Just as how a driver of a bank robbery is just as guilty and the gunman?

3. Regarding the "cutting off the mic" at a commitee hearing: The meeting was supposed to be about renewing or scrapping the USA Patriot Act, the debate devolved into an argument about the detainees at Gitmo. That was completely off topic. If the committee leadership couldn't get the folks to stay on topic, as a last act, he had every right to cut off the mics.

Just as you wouldn't put up with Conservative/GOP trolls on here if all of them wrote "GWB is awesome! Four more years!" over and over in your comments. Hopefully pretty quickly you'd erase their comments and ban them, as you should. If the Dems wanted a committee hearing on Gitmo, then start one up. Just like they tried to have a mock Impeachment hearing on President Bush. It made the Dems look petty and childish, but they had every right to make themselves look dumb.

-- Another topic --

Flag burning may soon be a federal crime. Your library records may be retrieved by the government.I'm completely against a flag burning amendment for a host of reasons.

Right now, burning a flag isn't a real sign of protest because it's still legal (as long as it's YOUR flag). If burning becomes illegal, people will become martyrs for sticking up for their ideals. This will only embolden people to burn more flags. (Which is entertaining because the smoke will increase "global warming", while at the same time increase demand for American flags, and bring in a few more jobs.)

The flag burning law (HR1974)A) Restricts flag burning only when accompanied by violence, or likely future violence. (It is already illegal to incite a crowd to violence, that is not protected speech.) Not more than one year of prison for option A.B) You can't burn, hurt, steal a flag owned by the gov't. (Property theft laws already deal with this) C) Commiting B while on Federal land. Not more than 2 years for options B or C.D) This only applies to Federal law, not state or local laws. (This is just one of rare moments where the Feds stay out of the State government's business.)

This bill just restates previous laws, pretties them up, and makes it an amendment. It is overreaching, and not needed since other laws already apply to everything mentioned above. Makeup on a pig is still a pig.

The flag burning bill should be defeated. Besides, if you paid for it, you can burn it. Be my guest. I like when my opponents are bold and in the open, they're easier to spot :-)

HelloI think you have a real great site. I always search for this kind of information online and i am glad to have cross your site. I look forward to all the updates. I have found a great web site, go to http://ibcnews.blogspot.comThanks again.

I am in absolute agreement with you but what I really don't like is the rhetoric from both the right and the left. It makes me wince when liberals call right wingers facists or anything else. I think the hyperbolic labeling is dangerous on either side and the repugs seem to have the market cornered on it. I believe that we absolutely must respect the 4th amendment and I live in NYC and take the subway every day. I think we need to educate people about the constitution and how it, too, protects us. I think that calling people facists alienates the other side the same way their wordy diatribes that are replete with "labeling" language alienates us. We need civil discourse about this topic. I really like your blog. Thanks for writing about all this.

Most conservatives in England have admitted that they have smoked a joint, but they are very dull. They think they will improve their image. They just say in every Democracy what they have to say to get votes. Individual answers come from individuals, but people only want leaders with heads like clocks. It is easy to follow when leaders walk only in strainght lines.

Oh man, you must be on here 24/7...or is that picture of poor, overly mocked, Pres Bush on lots of other blogs? OUr PM never gets that much attention but don't think its because our leaders are such great guys either. It's because we have these lackluster, personality deficient, fencesitters that no one notices them enough to give them the satisfaction of mockery recognition. At least your presidents have some color to them, so to speak.

You're right. It shouldn't be necessary to make good citizenship legally mandatory. After all, living in the land of the free brings with it no responsibilities whatsoever. Rail like hell when the crack dealer down the street hooks our children, call the police names because it's happening...just, God bless you, don't actually CALL the police and let them know what's happening because, jeez, it's not your responsibility. Frankly, I think it's the greater concern to protect your children from the crack or meth dealer than to protect them from our democratically elected government...but then, that's just me.

Regarding the usage of the word "fascists". I truly do not believe the word is being used proper justification in the case of our current government (including more specifically, our Legislative and the Executive branches)

I took the following from Wikipedia:

"The term fascism has come to mean any system of government resembling Mussolini's, that in various combinations:

* exalts the nation, (and sometimes the race or culture) above the individual, with the state apparatus being supreme.* stresses loyalty to a single leader.* uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition.* engages in severe economic and social regimentation.* engages in syndicalist corporatism.* implements totalitarian systems."

In my opinion, we are headed (if not already there) to fascism.

Honestly, its not really hyperbole guys. Its reality, IMO.

Craig: Living in the land of the free does bring responsibilities. But we should not be required to police one another or be tainted as a criminal ourselves. If I see my neighbor smoking a joint, I am not a criminal because I didn't turn him in. Its not my place, IMO. If you believe it is your place, thats fine, but for us that believe in "live and let live", we should not be turned into criminals.

As long as I am not, at the minimum, an accessory to the crime, I should not be at criminal risk of prosecution. There is a big difference between an ethical obligation and a criminal obligation. Our very freedom is, in fact, the liberty to weigh the situation and make a decision for ourselves to act or not to act.

It scary the sorts of things that politicians will resort to in trying to protect us from ourselves. I did a search on the Library of Congress website and found the actual text of the bill introduced by Sensenbrenner.

What's funny is that a year ago, people hated Bush just like they do today. In October, they go from hating him to loving him, and he's reelected. Now these same people are complaining about his handling of Iraq and everything else.

This is very alarming, that's for sure. I posted on this several weeks ago; I'm glad it's getting more publicity. Scheisse Sensenbrenner has gotta go. He was one of the ringleaders of Clinton's impeachment and he was behind the Real ID Act.

As a life-long Wisconsinite I am truly appalled by the actions and idiotic thought process of Sensenbrenner. We have not sent a fascist to Washington since that other idiot Joe McCarthy. I'm glad I don't live in his district!

I ask you not to hold it against the State of Wisconsin for the crap that this fool spews from his mouth.

"If you "witness" certain drug offenses taking place or "learn" that they took place you would have to report the offense to law enforcement within 24 hours and provide "full assistance" in the investigation, apprehension, and prosecution of the people involved. Failure to do so would be a crime punishable by a mandatory two year prison sentence."

This is rediculous, and opens up a HUGE legal blackhole, but what else do you expect in the War on (some) Drugs?

1. How is "failure to notify the authorities" supposed to be proven? Unless you were in the room, or you supplied drugs to someone, you could have no idea any drugs were going on.

2. Isn't this just a rewording of the "conspiracy/accessory to a crime" laws? Just as how a driver of a bank robbery is just as guilty and the gunman?

3. Regarding the "cutting off the mic" at a commitee hearing: The meeting was supposed to be about renewing or scrapping the USA Patriot Act, the debate devolved into an argument about the detainees at Gitmo. That was completely off topic. If the committee leadership couldn't get the folks to stay on topic, as a last act, he had every right to cut off the mics.

Just as you wouldn't put up with Conservative/GOP trolls on here if all of them wrote "GWB is awesome! Four more years!" over and over in your comments. Hopefully pretty quickly you'd erase their comments and ban them, as you should. If the Dems wanted a committee hearing on Gitmo, then start one up. Just like they tried to have a mock Impeachment hearing on President Bush. It made the Dems look petty and childish, but they had every right to make themselves look dumb.

-- Another topic --

Flag burning may soon be a federal crime. Your library records may be retrieved by the government.I'm completely against a flag burning amendment for a host of reasons.

Right now, burning a flag isn't a real sign of protest because it's still legal (as long as it's YOUR flag). If burning becomes illegal, people will become martyrs for sticking up for their ideals. This will only embolden people to burn more flags. (Which is entertaining because the smoke will increase "global warming", while at the same time increase demand for American flags, and bring in a few more jobs.)

The flag burning law (HR1974)A) Restricts flag burning only when accompanied by violence, or likely future violence. (It is already illegal to incite a crowd to violence, that is not protected speech.) Not more than one year of prison for option A.B) You can't burn, hurt, steal a flag owned by the gov't. (Property theft laws already deal with this) C) Commiting B while on Federal land. Not more than 2 years for options B or C.D) This only applies to Federal law, not state or local laws. (This is just one of rare moments where the Feds stay out of the State government's business.)

This bill just restates previous laws, pretties them up, and makes it an amendment. It is overreaching, and not needed since other laws already apply to everything mentioned above. Makeup on a pig is still a pig.

The flag burning bill should be defeated. Besides, if you paid for it, you can burn it. Be my guest. I like when my opponents are bold and in the open, they're easier to spot :-)

HelloI think you have a real great site. I always search for this kind of information online and i am glad to have cross your site. I look forward to all the updates. I have found a great web site, go to http://ibcnews.blogspot.comThanks again.

I am in absolute agreement with you but what I really don't like is the rhetoric from both the right and the left. It makes me wince when liberals call right wingers facists or anything else. I think the hyperbolic labeling is dangerous on either side and the repugs seem to have the market cornered on it. I believe that we absolutely must respect the 4th amendment and I live in NYC and take the subway every day. I think we need to educate people about the constitution and how it, too, protects us. I think that calling people facists alienates the other side the same way their wordy diatribes that are replete with "labeling" language alienates us. We need civil discourse about this topic. I really like your blog. Thanks for writing about all this.

Most conservatives in England have admitted that they have smoked a joint, but they are very dull. They think they will improve their image. They just say in every Democracy what they have to say to get votes. Individual answers come from individuals, but people only want leaders with heads like clocks. It is easy to follow when leaders walk only in strainght lines.

Oh man, you must be on here 24/7...or is that picture of poor, overly mocked, Pres Bush on lots of other blogs? OUr PM never gets that much attention but don't think its because our leaders are such great guys either. It's because we have these lackluster, personality deficient, fencesitters that no one notices them enough to give them the satisfaction of mockery recognition. At least your presidents have some color to them, so to speak.

You're right. It shouldn't be necessary to make good citizenship legally mandatory. After all, living in the land of the free brings with it no responsibilities whatsoever. Rail like hell when the crack dealer down the street hooks our children, call the police names because it's happening...just, God bless you, don't actually CALL the police and let them know what's happening because, jeez, it's not your responsibility. Frankly, I think it's the greater concern to protect your children from the crack or meth dealer than to protect them from our democratically elected government...but then, that's just me.

Regarding the usage of the word "fascists". I truly do not believe the word is being used proper justification in the case of our current government (including more specifically, our Legislative and the Executive branches)

I took the following from Wikipedia:

"The term fascism has come to mean any system of government resembling Mussolini's, that in various combinations:

* exalts the nation, (and sometimes the race or culture) above the individual, with the state apparatus being supreme.* stresses loyalty to a single leader.* uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition.* engages in severe economic and social regimentation.* engages in syndicalist corporatism.* implements totalitarian systems."

In my opinion, we are headed (if not already there) to fascism.

Honestly, its not really hyperbole guys. Its reality, IMO.

Craig: Living in the land of the free does bring responsibilities. But we should not be required to police one another or be tainted as a criminal ourselves. If I see my neighbor smoking a joint, I am not a criminal because I didn't turn him in. Its not my place, IMO. If you believe it is your place, thats fine, but for us that believe in "live and let live", we should not be turned into criminals.

As long as I am not, at the minimum, an accessory to the crime, I should not be at criminal risk of prosecution. There is a big difference between an ethical obligation and a criminal obligation. Our very freedom is, in fact, the liberty to weigh the situation and make a decision for ourselves to act or not to act.